Just A Good Old Boy Who Won’t Take Crap

It’s not the sort of thing that doesn’t happen in every state, every county, across the country, a bank wants to foreclose on somebody’s mortgage, and the homeowner isn’t happy about it.  In this case, U.S. Bank wanted to foreclose on Otis Wayne Phillips home, and Phillips wasn’t inclined to take it lying down. 

The problem is that Phillips sought to refinance under the HAMP program, for which U.S. Bank received $20 billion from the federal government. Phillips, being a taxpayer, believed he ought to benefit from his tax money going to the bank in conjunction with having some problems paying his mortgage, and so applied to participate in the program. U.S. Bank said “no.”  That’s it, no. No explanation, no nothing. Just no. So Phillips sued.

Judge Dennis Blackmon in the Superior Court of Carroll County, Georgia, got the case, and U.S. Bank moved to dismiss, arguing that Phillips had no standing.  Here’s Discourse&nbsp



4 thoughts on “Just A Good Old Boy Who Won’t Take Crap

  1. jtk

    You tip your hat to Judge Blackmon for his “guts” to take a stand but also admit this decision could very well be completely incorrect and overturned. Do you really think it is wise to encourage judges to follow widespread public (and presumably their own) outrage and take a “stand” even if wrong on the law? Isn’t that how unpopular defendants lose legitimate evidentiary objections and are otherwise railroaded with barely a nod to due process? Doesn’t that lead to acquiescence of “testilying” as the judge is taking a hard stance on crime?

    Like you, I have no idea how the issue of standing for loan modification suits works, but this ruling at the very least makes statements about HAMP that are false and imply the judge did not actually read whatever agreement exists between US Bank and the US government.

    If it turns out this is just an emotional ruling barely tied to the law, how is that any better than robosigning as far as cheapening the rule of law?

  2. SHG

    To reach your question, you’ve tossed in some erroneous assumptions. I don’t suggest he’s wrong on the law, but merely note that I don’t know because it’s not my area of law. I don’t suggest he’s following “widespread public (and presumably their own) outrage” but rather stating his opinion clearly and bluntly.  I don’t suggest he gets credit for taking a stand while being wrong, but for taking a stand for believing he’s right, and not holding his punches because one party is rich and powerful.

    How any of this leads to “acquiescence of ‘testilying'” is beyond me. I applaud his frankness and honesty, and that leads to judges approving of perjury? I’m missing the connection.

    And what do you mean by “but this ruling at the very least makes statements about HAMP that are false and imply the judge did not actually read whatever agreement exists between US Bank and the US government”? Are you aware of false statements about HAMP? If so, you need to say what they are and how you come to know they’re false. But my read of the decision doesn’t indicate that his reading of HAMP is in issue, but rather the bank’s refusal to provide any basis whatsoever to the plaintiff for its refusal to modify his loan, which precludes its motion to dismiss for lack of standing to question the bank.

    So no, absolutely no issue here whatsoever, and frankly, the connections you draw don’t make much sense at all. 

Comments are closed.